Should Atheism be a thing????

Because there is no theism ... the idea of a God, is lunacy ... to say the least. Do we "label" people who aren't insane?

No, we don't.

When you start labeling "a-theist" the word being used is "theism". The preposition being used, is that "theism" is the normal state of mind, and
"a-theism" is the anti state of mind.

We do not live in 2000 BC, we live in the year of 2017 AD, and in a couple of days we'll eneter 2018.

You want to keep the state of mind, that beliveing in Santa Claus is normal ... hell no. Believing in Santa Claus is lunacy, it's literally being
"retarded" to a point of fault. Not because there cannot be a creator, but because any "rabbi" claiming to *understand* the mindset, or the intent of
any spernatural being is not just fallacy, it's not just merely a falcehood ... it's arrogance to the point, where that rabbi is claiming to be a God
himself. To understand the omnipotent and omniscient, you must be one yourself.

So, the preposition that people who do not believe in lunatic ideology are a-"anything" is not acceptable.

Why don't you start calling people, who believe in "God" or "Allah", as a-normal. Seriously, thats more fitting.

this country was founded on the premise that every human has the right to freely think whatever they choose so long as their actions respect the basic
rights of their fellow citizens. that means we all have the right to be "retarded" as you put it. if you can't abide by this, then move to a country
where such freedoms don't exist, and enjoy the consequences of thought policing and authoritarianism.

Atheist are the biggest religious people I have ever conversed with. They have more faith than most Christians in what they claim to and not to
believe.

But then you know my views JoshuaCox.

Complete load of BS. Atheists call out the false claims of theists. They don't have faith, they LACK faith. There is nothing about atheism that
requires faith. It only requires logic. There is no evidence to suggest god exists, therefor it's logical to not have that belief. Don't be upset
with atheists, because they call out religious people when they attack science and spread lies that claim their religion is proved. If Christians
just left other people alone, you wouldn't have atheists so adamant about calling out their BS, but they always try to claim their religion has been
proved and is backed by evidence instead of simply accepting that it's one belief possibility of many. They indoctrinate young impressionable
children and force their views on others, and that is harmful to society, so we will call that out any time we see it.

Yeah atheism is a religious belief, just like not playing basketball is a sport. Sorry, but you don't get to define what other people believe. Ask
somebody what they DO believe. Don't define them based on what they DON'T.

Ironically,
most atheists are disgusted with Christianity because atheists claim Christianity requires “blind faith” or “blind trust.” But by the very
definition of the name they carry, atheists in fact are the ones who have based their beliefs on the absence of evidence.

Atheists are a people “without a belief in theism” not because they have disproved the existence of God with evidence, but rather because they
claim there is an absence of evidence for God. They believe there is no God because they cannot see any evidence of God. Atheists trust there is no
God not because of what they see, but because of what they cannot see. Their conviction stems from things not seen.

Atheism is no different from any other religious doctrine, it is believed totally by faith.

Sorry, you are wrong here. Atheism isn't a religious doctrine. There is no scripture, dogma or system to follow. There is only lack of belief in
god, which applies to tons of different people with varying beliefs, even religions that don't believe in god like Buddhism. Theists constantly
misrepresent us dishonestly and it's really getting old. Theists just have this need to project their faith on other people and force it down their
throat, so they pretend atheism is this irrational belief that means there is absolutely no god. That ain't how it works, pal. Instead of
pigeonholing people, ask them what they DO believe, and then categorize them based on that.

Trying to define somebody by what they don't believe is stupid. Do you believe in fairies or vampires? Well, I guess that means you have faith in
the religion of afairyism or avampirism and irrationally believe they absolutely don't exist anywhere in the universe and follow that doctrine. Just
stop with the nonsense. The one thing that defines atheism is not having a belief in god and any atheist will tell you that. Funny how you people
always try to tell us what we think and believe. It's completely dishonest, especially when your view is a complete guess based on faith.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Wouldn't abiogenesis be a faith position?
Wouldn't panspermia be a faith position?

No, not really. Those are scientific hypotheses, currently being studied and figured out. They aren't based on blind faith, in fact abiogenesis has
several experiments that back it. They are basically works in progress in science, they aren't just made up out of the blue, they are based on what
we understand about the universe.

I believe atheism is a clearly superior faith position however there is an assumption that life began from nothing without evidence that it is
possible.

Who says that life began from nothing?

Both theist's and atheist's are claiming a position on something beyond their understanding.

It's a belief position yes, but it's based on logic. Since there is no testable evidence to support the existence of god, it is logical to not have
that belief until that changes. Theists are the ones that claim it's beyond our understanding, atheists just admit we don't know the answer yet, and
they could change their position if evidence were found.

Is there really much difference between...

"God works in mysterious ways"
and
"We don't have the answers yet"

Yes there is a big difference because one makes an assertion that god exists, while the other is a position of honesty that admits we don't know.

If atheists aren't willing to accept the flaws in our own logic then how can we expect the theists to do that?

What logical flaws are there in lacking a belief in something that has no supporting evidence? Is it logically flawed to lack belief in vampires?

originally posted by: Barcs
Theists are the ones that claim it's beyond our understanding, atheists just admit we don't know the answer yet, and they could change their position
if evidence were found.

I'm an atheist and I claim it's beyond our understanding.
We can't even comprehend half of the dimensions that exist.

I think it's scientifically sound to say that if you cannot comprehend half of existence then any claims of understanding will be "at best"
incomplete.

Regarding abiogenesis or panspermia...
As you said, they are hypotheses. If you believe in either one then you have a faith position until it becomes a theory.
Personally I lean towards panspermia. I kind of like the fact that I dismiss god's input in favour of life coming from "the heavens".

Regarding life from nothing...
You're right, I should have said life from no life.

Regarding god works in mysterious ways vs we don't have the answers yet...
They are both claims of ignorance which should be respected.
I do see your point however. One claims "God" and the other claims "yet".

Regarding flaws in logic...
I don't believe that you're an atheist because there is no supporting evidence for theism.
I also don't believe you dismiss vampires because of the lack of supporting evidence.

My reasoning (and yours too I believe) is based on the mountains and mountains of evidence which specifically contradicts both "god's" and Bram
Stoker's words.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I'm an atheist and I claim it's beyond our understanding.
We can't even comprehend half of the dimensions that exist.

You are talking about the origins of the universe, rather than god, right? Yes, we don't comprehend the origins of the universe yet or what may be
involved. If god doesn't exist, it can't be beyond our understanding, he's just not there.

I think it's scientifically sound to say that if you cannot comprehend half of existence then any claims of understanding will be "at best"
incomplete.

Yep and every scientific theory is different in that regard.

Regarding abiogenesis or panspermia...
As you said, they are hypotheses. If you believe in either one then you have a faith position until it becomes a theory.
Personally I lean towards panspermia. I kind of like the fact that I dismiss god's input in favour of life coming from "the heavens".

Again, abiogenesis is backed by some experiments, god is not. Science is not something that requires faith or belief, it's merely asking the question
"how can we test this idea?". Scientists are working it out. We don't currently know all the answers, but that doesn't mean we never will. Faith in
experiments is not needed, the results speak for themselves. Nobody takes dogmatic positions when it comes to hypotheses. They acknowledge that
science is working on it and it hasn't been proved yet. Theories are quite different, however.

I don't believe that you're an atheist because there is no supporting evidence for theism.
I also don't believe you dismiss vampires because of the lack of supporting evidence.

My reasoning (and yours too I believe) is based on the mountains and mountains of evidence which specifically contradicts both "god's" and Bram
Stoker's words.

I'm not aware of any science that actually contradicts the existence of god. I've always seen science as neutral to that, since there is no evidence
to test, it can't really be factored into anything. Yeah, the evidence contradicts literal versions of holy books, but not the existence of god as
whole. You can't have evidence of non existence without complete knowledge of the universe. Vampires could very well exist somewhere in some dark
corner of the universe. So could god. But logic says to go with what can actually be empirically demonstrated. That doesn't mean you should close
your mind to it completely. I disbelieve in god because the burden of proof for god's existence has not yet been met.

a reply to: bjarneorn
And what do you call making claims about what other people don't know? Or claiming that other people don't know something because one doesn't agree
with what they claim or (seem to) imply to know (from one's own perspective or interpretation of their commentary or arguments one has heard over
time)?

"seem to" is connected to the last part about "perspective", I was trying to incorporate multiple possible scenarios into one question, so both when
they just seem to imply it in the eye of the beholder as well as actually implying it, the 2 do not necessarily have to match, one's impression can be
wrong, the question counts for all scenarios whether the beholder is right or wrong with the impression they got from it, or whether it's claimed or
merely implied. Too much elaboration?

synonym for knowledge: science (from the Latin "scientia", meaning "knowledge"). Did you know the Dutch word for "science" is "wetenschap" which
incorporates the verb "knowing" in it? You do now...

And it's a fact/certainty/reality/truth (all synonyms) or something that is
true/factual/absolute/correct, without error/certain (again, all synonyms). Or should I have been more cautious and said "you can now" (it might help
in terms of verification to google "weten dutch english"; I like this one:
Interglot.com, it also has links to the words "knowledge" and "science" on the
page for "weten").

To make a remark or provide information when it is inappropriate or indiscreet to do so, or when one does not have permission or the authority to do
so.

If you change "permission or the authority" to something indicating an inability to do so reliably, it almost applies (the questions at the start of
this comment are hypothetical and not rhetorical, that's why I used "one" a couple of times instead of "you"; in that situation or scenario, I'd like
to know a good expression for it, perhaps you or anyone else here knows of one). Is there a similar expression that has that as its definition? I'd
like to know something new as well. Something like the antonym for the expression:

"Speak for yourself."

One that is a bit more creative than "speaking for someone else" (without asking for permission?). Possibly something that indicates speaking for an
entire group of people at once that do not all fit into the same dismissal-box cause they don't all think and argue the same way, or possess the same
knowledge. Allthough perhaps I should acknowledge that there are definitely some patterns in ways of thinking noticeable in humanity.

The beginning of the universe and the concept of a god cannot be separated.
It's the question of the beginning that brought rise to the concept of god in the first place. (In my ignorant opinion)

You are putting faith in unproven science like abiogenesis, or panspermia or a vast range of unproven hypotheses to explain the answer. The
possibility we could be inside a simulation is a valid hypothesis which allows for a god that lives outside time.

You are also denying the vast amount of books out there that "god" deemed necessary to have published.
If you are claiming there is no evidence you have to debunk the many claims of evidence out there. That requires understanding of biology, geology,
astrology etc. etc.

Atheism does not exist inside a bubble.

That might actually answer the OP.
When theism stops being a thing, so will atheism.

But in reality we are both just groups of people who are scared of the unknown and trying to deal with it as best we can.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.